Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[knocker]

'Deniers' are those the ones that didn't believe in witches ?

 

All 'folk' want is evidence not rhetoric.

 

And there is not enough evidence already out there? Deniers are those who have a closed mind set.

[Tamara]

CO2 on Trial

 

IF THINGS HAD WORKED OUT BETTER

https://medium.com/earth-today/41d6534e8ff6

As someone with an enquiring mind who doesn't automatically take as read everything she is told, I find that quite patronising. Why does open-mindedness, balance and a degree of questioning mainstream science get equated with this very tiresome (and patronising) word 'denialism'? This is not a religion to be preached and for 'non believers to see the light' It is (or should be) an attempt to find the truth without supposition or assumption. Not by talking 'at people' or by brainwashing/instilling them with a mantra.

 

With things like this published all the time it is no surprise that internet discussion carries on the way it does ...

 

Its important to distinguish between this - and the vital environmental needs such as sustainability/economy of  sources of energy, endangered species, crops, countryside/forest, preservation of buildings/land heritage, recyling of waste etc which are pressing requirements that just about everyone recognises, irrespective of climate variation

Edited April 30, 2013 by Tamara Road

[BornFromTheVoid]

As someone with an enquiring mind who doesn't automatically take as read everything she is told, I find that quite patronising. Why does open-mindedness, balance and a degree of questioning mainstream science get equated with this very tiresome (and patronising) word 'denialism'?

 

I don't see that approach being labelled as denialism?

 

This is not a religion to be preached and for 'non believers to see the light' It is (or should be) an attempt to find the truth without supposition or assumption. Not by talking 'at people' or by brainwashing/instilling them with a mantra.

 

Unfortunately, it appears to many people that the brainwashing has already happened, with many people convinced that climate change is a massive international hoax, designed to control and tax people, gravy train scientists, etc. It's many of the same PR companies that worked with big tobacco in the 90s that are trying to attack climate science and the scientist, just as they did with the link between smoking and cancer.

 

With things like this published all the time it is no surprise that internet discussion carries on the way it does ...

 

Its important to distinguish between this - and the vital environmental needs such as sustainability/economy of  sources of energy, endangered species, crops, countryside/forest, preservation of buildings/land heritage, recyling of waste etc which are pressing requirements that just about everyone recognises, irrespective of climate variation

 

I agree, but add that many of these things are also affected by climate change.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry T.R. but are not these 'pressing Environmental needs' not tied in with human mis-management?

We can point the finger a 'human mis-managemnt' of the Pine Beetle crisis in the U.S. (to little to late) but without the climate shift the issue would not have arisen?

When we look at the extinction event we are ploughing into surely we need wonder 'Why', in what should have been an interglacial with no special forcings, folk are now speaking of a 3/4 extinctoin of all species?

When we look at the unfolding environmental disaster along sections of the Eastern U.S. Seaboard do we not neet wonder 'Why' , in a time of orbital forcing that should be cooling the north, are we seeing sea inundation and coastal forrest loss?

Changes due to AGW are no longer a thing of the 'Future' but are impacting now and this needs to be 'shown' to the folk who still choose to doubt midst the wealth of data showing how correct intial fears were?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Well, I get 'insulted' with both 'Denier' and 'Warmist' from time to time...can't say as it bothers me though.

[BornFromTheVoid]

One side of the PR issue has gone quite far...

 

Conservatives less likely to buy same lightbulbs if you tell them it will help the environment

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/30/1205911/-Conservatives-less-likely-to-buy-same-lightbulbs-if-you-tell-them-it-will-help-the-environment

 

 

 

A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least.

The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy†either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,†and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,†said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

 

 

[Gray-Wolf]

How many 'Rant' posts end with the "makes me want to buy a 4X4" or something similar? Almost like a child behaving well whilst the Parent is there only to act badly once they think the autthority figure has gone?

It's all a bit 'cutting off ones nose to spite the face' though.......takes all sorts eh?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Tamara]

I'm sorry T.R. but are not these 'pressing Environmental needs' not tied in with human mis-management?

We can point the finger a 'human mis-managemnt' of the Pine Beetle crisis in the U.S. (to little to late) but without the climate shift the issue would not have arisen?

When we look at the extinction event we are ploughing into surely we need wonder 'Why', in what should have been an interglacial with no special forcings, folk are now speaking of a 3/4 extinctoin of all species?

When we look at the unfolding environmental disaster along sections of the Eastern U.S. Seaboard do we not neet wonder 'Why' , in a time of orbital forcing that should be cooling the north, are we seeing sea inundation and coastal forrest loss?

Changes due to AGW are no longer a thing of the 'Future' but are impacting now and this needs to be 'shown' to the folk who still choose to doubt midst the wealth of data showing how correct intial fears were?

Yes they are due to mis-management in a very significant way unfortunately and made worse by a large demographic problem that sits alongside this neglect which means that resources are not always proportionate to those most in need and in the largest numbers. And some of the most densely populated areas, as well as being poorest, are often least able to efficiently and effectively make use of the number of natural resources that are actually available to them.

 

However just because that is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the principle is linear across all environmental factors, which naturally includes potential effects of climate change in whichever direction that may proceed. I would suggest that those other environmental priorities I mentioned have much more certainty of outcome attached to them and are much less (or in some cases not) dependant on verification of scientific theory in the same way as research into AGW is.

 

There certainly should be some contingency for any climate change effects which may arise in whichever direction, but first of all lets not put the cart before the horse and rely on theory at the expense of other possibilities, but rather try and work out a more reliable suitable contingency plan instead through a balanced programme of research into ALL possible drivers and not make assumptions to rely on about any of our possible manmade contributions into a dynamic and complex natural system..that is climate.

 

We cannot know how much, and if we have mismanaged our climate unless we find out first if, and how much our natural system is still working as it should be cyclically. This needs to be costed properly.

 

Finally - this pesky term 'denialism'. What the term suggests is that there are people (like me and many many others) who are refusing to accept an outcome or range of outcomes that AGW proponents feel is a certainty or near certainty. Implying that they are as near certain as possible they are right and that anyone who questions their idealism or has doubts about it is somehow refusing to face inevitability

 

In terms of my suggestions above as an approach, then I would like to think it lacks any arrogance and is not assumptive and presumptious and rules nothing out, or in. One cannot fully deny something until it has been shown to be fact. Worth bearing in mind the ass -of - u and me phrase here i think

 

On that basis, I think that the accusations of being closed minded by some on the anthropromorphic side of the debate are in fact polarically wrong in that not ruling anything in and out is actually, to the contrary, being completely open minded.

 

Of course the PR smokescreen confuses and clouds the debate further, but any true 'sceptic' (to whatever the degree) is intelligent enough to read between the lines of smokescreen and decide for themselves what they think is true - with, or without being labelled as whatever. In that sense, although no one has definitive answers, not all jo public is as gullible and confused as the media would like them to be or would like to make out they are .

Edited May 1, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Tamara]

 

 

I don't see that approach being labelled as denialism?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it appears to many people that the brainwashing has already happened, with many people convinced that climate change is a massive international hoax, designed to control and tax people, gravy train scientists, etc. It's many of the same PR companies that worked with big tobacco in the 90s that are trying to attack climate science and the scientist, just as they did with the link between smoking and cancer.

 

 

 

I agree, but add that many of these things are also affected by climate change.

I think my reply just now effectively covers most of this

[Methuselah]

Changes due to AGW are no longer a thing of the 'Future' but are impacting now and this needs to be 'shown' to the folk who still choose to doubt midst the wealth of data showing how correct intial fears were?

I would broadly agree with that conclusion, G-W...Based on the available data, any other conclusion seems hard to draw...Though, having said that, the unknowns still remain...

 

Take for example, natural feedbacks in response to anthropogenic forcing: how can they ever be known until after the event?

 

Then, there's the 'well-known fact' that proxy data are always unreliable: how do we actually know which of our past reconstructions of global climate are in fact wrong? How do we know that the MWP actually happened? Can we pick and choose as to which set of proxy data we accept, and which set we dismiss?

 

But, whether we like it or not, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - a greenhouse gas that human activity is well on the way to doubling...We can nitpick, we can quibble, we can argue about uncertainty; but, at the end of the day, most of what is currently unknown will remain unknown - until after Nature has taken its course...Hindsight is always 20-20!

 

So, yes, somewhere along the line, Climate Science faces a PR problem.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think my reply just now effectively covers most of this

 

A bit...

I find that, as you call them, true sceptics (that can argue the science rather than shout conspiracies and falsehoods) are few and far between. Most like to call themselves sceptics, when in fact their scepticism is little more than denial of science they disagree with and blind acceptance of anything the likes of WUWT,  GWPF or even what fellow "sceptics" tell them.

 

Research into the natural cycles and anthropogenic forcings are ongoing, and the consensus, weighted by evidence, is strongly on the side that we should be cooling, but GHGs have sent us in the opposite direction. As it is though, all known drivers of climate ARE being researched.

[Tamara]

A bit...

I find that, as you call them, true sceptics (that can argue the science rather than shout conspiracies and falsehoods) are few and far between. Most like to call themselves sceptics, when in fact their scepticism is little more than denial of science they disagree with and blind acceptance of anything the likes of WUWT,  GWPF or even what fellow "sceptics" tell them.

 

Research into the natural cycles and anthropogenic forcings are ongoing, and the consensus, weighted by evidence, is strongly on the side that we should be cooling, but GHGs have sent us in the opposite direction. As it is though, all known drivers of climate ARE being researched.

There are actually extremes of opinion on both sides of opinion and both are equally culpable.

 

It is not actually difficult at all to question AGW theory, and no need to fall back on any spoof sceptic speak. The beliefs regarding the assumed relationship between GHG's and the atmosphere that amplifies temperature upwards are open to a lot of questions. CO2 agents alone cannot produce sustained warming without these positive feedback relationships being in existence - otherwise natural cyclical factors over turn them and the global atmosphere effectively eats surplus into space. And feedbacks present in reality could be negative as well as or instead of positive.

 

A principal example here being clouds in terms of types/existence of feedbacks...these could be as easily negative as well as/instead of positive - and that is without even starting to discuss natural drivers and cycles and effects.

 

Much of the warming amplification feedback of AGW theory depends on the verfication of positive feedbacks in reality.Much more research is required to be conclusive.

 

The consensus amongst AGW proponents suggests and supports what you believe, but as theory it isn't necessarily right.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above it is far too soon to assess feedback effects from negative natural cycles - e.g obviously for one being solar activity. What is happening now in short term context needs to be treated very cautiously in term of long term climate context (which IPCC conclusions are based). Therefore to give a balanced and accurate assessment any other processes at work should be measured accordingly over multi decades too.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Tamara Road

[pottyprof]

Unfortunately, it appears to many people that the brainwashing has already happened, with many people convinced that climate change is a massive international hoax, designed to control and tax people.

Considering we're getting close to having to exit the dependence on oil and the tax revenues generated from it, there has to be something to replace it. The question should be is it fair and realistic to accept the level of green taxes that are currently being asked of all of us? I'd say that short term there should be strong support for it. So yes it is designed to tax people. It becomes unfair when the people who run these projects start syphoning off the money raised for uses other than the benefit of the county where these schemes are.

Is it a hoax? There are certain elements that make you stop and wonder at times, especially when temperatures are no longer rising and have held stable for the last 15 years though admittedly at the highest levels recorded and people still shout "but they are rising" and then muttering "but only because of the 30 year rolling average".

Does it control? He/she who has the power will always control..... Take the main fuse out of the power board and throw it away. Turn off the gas. Walk everywhere. While it might be something to prove to begin with, the modern world requires us to consume energy. Does that make a clearer picture of what these people are saying?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There are actually extremes of opinion on both sides of opinion and both are equally culpable.

 

It is not actually difficult at all to question AGW theory, and no need to fall back on any spoof sceptic speak. The beliefs regarding the assumed relationship between GHG's and the atmosphere that amplifies temperature upwards are open to a lot of questions. CO2 agents alone cannot produce sustained warming without these positive feedback relationships being in existence - otherwise natural cyclical factors over turn them and the global atmosphere effectively eats surplus into space. And feedbacks present in reality could be negative as well as or instead of positive.

 

A principal example here being clouds in terms of types/existence of feedbacks...these could be as easily negative as well as/instead of positive - and that is without even starting to discuss natural drivers and cycles and effects.

 

Much of the warming amplification feedback of AGW theory depends on the verfication of positive feedbacks in reality.Much more research is required to be conclusive.

 

The consensus amongst AGW proponents suggests and supports what you believe, but as theory it isn't necessarily right.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above it is far too soon to assess feedback effects from negative natural cycles - e.g obviously for one being solar activity. What is happening now in short term context needs to be treated very cautiously in term of long term climate context (which IPCC conclusions are based). Therefore to give a balanced and accurate assessment any other processes at work should be measured accordingly over multi decades too.

 

There are extremes on both sides, no arguments there.

 

You're right, it's not difficult to question. But I've seen no genuine scientific questions that could overturn evidence that we've caused, at least, most of the warming over the last 100 years. The feedback from water vapour occurs from any warming, not just CO2 warming. Water vapour is the strongest natural feedback mechanisms in the climate system.

On short time scales, natural cycles do overwhelm the surface air warming signal at least. We're seeing this now with the "no statistically significant warming since 1998" argument, due to the strong El Nino that year and the successive La Ninas since.  

At the moment it seems we're bucking the trend for slipping into the next ice age. Not many more powerful climate drivers than that!

 

Clouds are one of the larger areas of uncertainty with regard to their effect on climate sensitivity. From what I've read, I've seen little indication that they could do more than slow the rate of warming. Most of what I've read tend to predict little or positive feedback from clouds.

Many of the other positive feedbacks seem fairly robust to me. What areas of major uncertainty do you see?

 

By "AGW proponents" do you mean the scientists?

 

Indeed. We cannot predict what the sun will do, but solar activity has been declining for the last 50 years, with the longest minimum in a century just passed, and all the while, heat accumulation continues to accelerate. So that appears to be another that doesn't look like having a huge global impact that some expected.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Considering we're getting close to having to exit the dependence on oil and the tax revenues generated from it, there has to be something to replace it. The question should be is it fair and realistic to accept the level of green taxes that are currently being asked of all of us? I'd say that short term there should be strong support for it. So yes it is designed to tax people. It becomes unfair when the people who run these projects start syphoning off the money raised for uses other than the benefit of the county where these schemes are.

Is it a hoax? There are certain elements that make you stop and wonder at times, especially when temperatures are no longer rising and have held stable for the last 15 years though admittedly at the highest levels recorded and people still shout "but they are rising" and then muttering "but only because of the 30 year rolling average".

Does it control? He/she who has the power will always control..... Take the main fuse out of the power board and throw it away. Turn off the gas. Walk everywhere. While it might be something to prove to begin with, the modern world requires us to consume energy. Does that make a clearer picture of what these people are saying?

 

I don't mind if people complain about green taxes, or what they think are green taxes. It says nothing about the science.

 

The reasons for the apparent slow down in the surface air warming rate has been explained (ENSO, possibly aerosols to a small extent), and the continued accumulation of oceanic heat has been shown, but many people ignore it and push for the hoax theory.

 

Yes the world needs energy, but it wants to continue with cheap energy. Fossil fuels on the whole, haven't been getting any cheaper, and aren't gonna last. Also the world could probably do without rapid climatic change, ocean acidification, ground water contaminated with fracking fluids, ecosystems ruined by oil spills, etc.

[Gray-Wolf]

Solar just doesn't 'float' as a major forcing in a 'new, and rapid', type of warming. Should we have this level of extreme variability in solar output it would be written large throughout the climate record. Without the 'end of glaciation' type major albedo flip we do not see rapid (decadal) temp rises through the records.

 

i'm all for Solar being a major force in climate variation but this keeps it's influence within the bounds of 'normal' climate fluctuation. Pair it with other forcings (CO2 reductions prior to LIA) and it play a role in major climate variation events but these pale when we look at the current energy imbalance our planet is seeing.

 

As BFTV points out 93% of that energy is gobbled by the oceans and air temps are far more fickle with ENSO/PDO playing a major role in temp moderation (by 'wind' it would appear from the latest literature on the subject).

 

As with Antarctica any year where we do not see the level of warming the forcing demands is another 'year in the bank'. The energy does not dissipate but is stored in other systems awaiting deployment later. As the heat breaks into the Southern Continent we will see just how destructive 'sudden warming' is compared to 'gradual warming'.

 

The pace of warming is outstripping species abilities to migrate/adapt so spurts of sudden warming will devastate ecosystems.

 

As I have been at pains to point out Arctic changes are now beginning to add another major energy forcing into the planet and this year will be another where those changes will be manifest. My hope is that the added impetus in the climate system alters the past 6 years jet pattern shunting flooding North and west of mainland UK. It doesn't solve the issue but 'Heatwave UK' will surely silence the "it's not warming" NIMBY's for a few months and allow us to watch the Arctic Drama in peace!!

Edited May 2, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

Solar just doesn't 'float' as a major forcing in a 'new, and rapid', type of warming. Should we have this level of extreme variability in solar output it would be written large throughout the climate record. Without the 'end of glaciation' type major albedo flip we do not see rapid (decadal) temp rises through the records.

i'm all for Solar being a major force in climate variation but this keeps it's influence within the bounds of 'normal' climate fluctuation. Pair it with other forcings (CO2 reductions prior to LIA) and it play a role in major climate variation events but these pale when we look at the current energy imbalance our planet is seeing.

As BFTV points out 93% of that energy is gobbled by the oceans and air temps are far more fickle with ENSO/PDO playing a major role in temp moderation (by 'wind' it would appear from the latest literature on the subject).

As with Antarctica any year where we do not see the level of warming the forcing demands is another 'year in the bank'. The energy does not dissipate but is stored in other systems awaiting deployment later. As the heat breaks into the Southern Continent we will see just how destructive 'sudden warming' is compared to 'gradual warming'.

The pace of warming is outstripping species abilities to migrate/adapt so spurts of sudden warming will devastate ecosystems.

As I have been at pains to point out Arctic changes are now beginning to add another major energy forcing into the planet and this year will be another where those changes will be manifest. My hope is that the added impetus in the climate system alters the past 6 years jet pattern shunting flooding North and west of mainland UK. It doesn't solve the issue but 'Heatwave UK' will surely silence the "it's not warming" NIMBY's for a few months and allow us to watch the Arctic Drama in peace!!

Im still looking for the fabled hot spot in the tropics, the rest of your post is really just conjecture GW, nothing wrong with that as long as its not dressed up as facts.

I don't mind if people complain about green taxes, or what they think are green taxes. It says nothing about the science.

The reasons for the apparent slow down in the surface air warming rate has been explained (ENSO, possibly aerosols to a small extent), and the continued accumulation of oceanic heat has been shown, but many people ignore it and push for the hoax theory.

Yes the world needs energy, but it wants to continue with cheap energy. Fossil fuels on the whole, haven't been getting any cheaper, and aren't gonna last. Also the world could probably do without rapid climatic change, ocean acidification, ground water contaminated with fracking fluids, ecosystems ruined by oil spills, etc.

Thats all very well using ENSO as an excuse but the flip side of that is when ENSO was in its positive phase for thirty years, would that not account for much of the warming also. Edited May 2, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

The interesting thing for me, will be what happens the next time the ENSO flips...In the meantime, however, as comparison between now and the last 'trough' would seem a useful start-point? Comparing apples to pears is always (pardon the pun) fruitless!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Im still looking for the fabled hot spot in the tropics, the rest of your post is really just conjecture GW, nothing wrong with that as long as its not dressed up as facts.

Thats all very well using ENSO as an excuse but the flip side of that is when ENSO was in its positive phase for thirty years, would that not account for much of the warming also.

 

As has been explained before, the hot spot in the tropics is a feature of any surface warming in models, not just CO2 induced. The thing that separated CO2 induced warming from say solar(call it the CO2 fingerprint), is the presence of a strongly cooling stratosphere coupled with a warming surface.

 

ENSO is a reason, not an excuse. ENSO works in cycles, so cannot effect temperature on long time scales, only short timescales. When you see almost every successive ENSO event appear warmer than the last, it means something else is driving the trend. Even the 30 years of what you call "positive phase" was only slightly positive overall.

[UV-RAY]

As has been explained before, the hot spot in the tropics is a feature of any surface warming in models, not just CO2 induced. The thing that separated CO2 induced warming from say solar(call it the CO2 fingerprint), is the presence of a strongly cooling stratosphere coupled with a warming surface.

ENSO is a reason, not an excuse. ENSO works in cycles, so cannot effect temperature on long time scales, only short timescales. When you see almost every successive ENSO event appear warmer than the last, it means something else is driving the trend. Even the 30 years of what you call "positive phase" was only slightly positive overall.

Sorry it was poorly worded, yes it's a cycle but coupled with almost constant high solar output over the decades then this surely must have some sort of impact on global temps. Edited May 2, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sorry it was poorly worded, yes it's a cycle but coupled with almost constant high solar output over the decades then this surely must have some sort of impact on global temps.

 

Warming from solar activity wouldn't cause the stratosphere to cool though (which is and has happened). Also, solar activity was at it's peak for the 20th century while the planet cooled a little from the 40s to the 70s, so it's effects don't seem all that strong.

 

It's hard to say what effect the sun had on temperatures during the 20th century. We saw rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, when activity was quite low. The cooling the following 30 years when activity climbed to record highs, then warming again as activity dropped.

 

While I don't think that indicates that high solar activity causes cooling, I think it just shows that it's effect is easily swamped by others climate/weather drivers.

[UV-RAY]

Warming from solar activity wouldn't cause the stratosphere to cool though (which is and has happened). Also, solar activity was at it's peak for the 20th century while the planet cooled a little from the 40s to the 70s, so it's effects don't seem all that strong.

 

It's hard to say what effect the sun had on temperatures during the 20th century. We saw rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, when activity was quite low. The cooling the following 30 years when activity climbed to record highs, then warming again as activity dropped.

 

While I don't think that indicates that high solar activity causes cooling, I think it just shows that it's effect is easily swamped by others climate/weather drivers.

Yes it cooled between the 40s and 70s but that was down to a switch in the PDO. I think what we have to remember here though is that there is no one theory that fits all and that's the mistake we all make.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes it cooled between the 40s and 70s but that was down to a switch in the PDO. I think what we have to remember here though is that there is no one theory that fits all and that's the mistake we all make.

 

How do you think the PDO caused cooling? It's only a change in the distribution of cold and warm anomalies, it doesn't add or take heat from the system? Any peer reviewed research on the PDO causing cooling?

 

I agree though, no one theory fits all, which is why both natural and anthropogenic effects are being researched.

[UV-RAY]

There's plenty of stuff out there correlating the PDO and global temps. We also have to look at the poleward movement of the jet stream during this time, the reverse now seems to be happening.

[Methuselah]

There's plenty of stuff out there correlating the PDO and global temps. We also have to look at the poleward movement of the jet stream during this time, the reverse now seems to be happening.

But does anyone know which way the causal link operates? All assuming that there is one...